World News —
As the United States heads to the polls for its presidential election, with Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump as the primary candidates, political analysts and Thai policymakers are closely watching the potential ripple effects on international relations, particularly how these could influence Thailand’s geopolitical landscape.
Join us as TPN Media takes a brief and speculative look, but with factual historical context, to look at how either individual becoming US president could impact Thailand. Both have advantages and disadvantages in terms of how their policies could affect the Thai economy and Thai policies. Neither is necessarily better, just different, and TPN notes they stay neutral and are not endorsing any particular candidate. This is meant only to give curious readers a look at what may be under either administration.
Under Kamala Harris:
– Diplomatic Relations: Harris’s administration might place a stronger emphasis on human rights and democratic values globally, potentially affecting U.S.-Thailand relations. This could mean increased pressure on Thailand to improve its human rights record, especially concerning freedom of expression and political freedoms.
– Trade and Economy: There might be a continuation or slight enhancement of trade relations, focusing on sustainability and fair labor practices. The Biden-Harris administration had shown interest in regional partnerships like the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, which could benefit Thai exports but might also come with stringent environmental regulations and focus on climate change policies.
– Security and Defense: Harris could continue the Biden policy of reinforcing alliances in Southeast Asia to counterbalance Russia and China’s influence. This might lead to more military cooperation agreements, but with an emphasis on multilateral efforts rather than unilateral U.S. actions.
– Cultural Diplomacy: Harris’s background could foster cultural exchanges, particularly with a focus on diversity and inclusion, potentially opening doors for more educational and cultural programs between the U.S. and Thailand. Harris is likely to support more rights for minority groups in Thailand and urge Thailand to take more proactive measures on immigration and refugees. While the Biden/Harris administration applauded the recently passed marriage equality act in Thailand, Harris is likely to encourage Thailand to give more rights to transgender individuals in particular, such as allowing them national ID cards in their preferred gender.
Under Donald Trump:
– Trade Policies: Trump’s known for his America First policy, which could mean protectionist trade policies. Thailand might face higher tariffs or trade barriers unless it negotiates favorable terms. However, Trump’s past actions suggest he might also seek bilateral trade deals that could be advantageous for Thailand if navigated correctly.
– Foreign Policy: A Trump presidency might adopt a more transactional approach with Thailand, focusing on immediate benefits rather than long-term alliances. This could affect Thailand’s role in regional security, with less U.S. involvement in ASEAN affairs unless directly beneficial.
– Immigration and Tourism: Trump’s policies could tighten visa regulations, potentially impacting Thai students and tourists to the U.S. Conversely, if Trump promotes tourism from the U.S. to Asia as an economic strategy, this might boost Thai tourism.
– Environmental Policies: Should Trump revert or slow down on climate commitments, this could have mixed effects. Less stringent environmental regulations might benefit Thai industries in the short term but could clash with global sustainability trends.
Both presidencies would likely have to navigate the complex dynamics of U.S.-China relations, where Thailand has economic stakes. Harris might push for a more collective approach against China’s assertiveness, while Trump could opt for direct negotiations or confrontations, influencing Thailand’s strategic positioning.
While both candidates offer distinct approaches, the choice between them could dictate the tone of U.S.-Thai relations for the next four years, affecting everything from trade to cultural exchanges. Thai leaders will need to strategically align their policies to leverage opportunities or mitigate potential downsides from either presidency.
BRICS
Thailand has expressed interest in becoming a full member of BRICS eventually and recently became a partner. In this regard, both Harris and Trump are likely to have similar outlooks.
-Kamala Harris: Harris has emphasized maintaining strong international alliances and has been critical of leaders like Vladimir Putin, who is part of BRICS (Russia). Her focus on democracy, human rights, and a rules-based international order might lead her to be cautious or even skeptical about supporting the expansion of BRICS, especially if it includes countries that might not align with these values. However, her administration’s approach to international economic blocs might lean towards strengthening U.S. influence in Asia, potentially seeing BRICS expansion as counterproductive to U.S. strategic interests in the region.
– Donald Trump: Trump’s foreign policy has been characterized by an “America First” approach, often preferring bilateral deals over multilateral agreements like BRICS. His administration’s actions suggest a preference for direct negotiations rather than supporting large economic blocs that might challenge U.S. economic dominance or where the U.S. isn’t a member. There’s no direct evidence from his previous term about opposition to BRICS expansion, but his general skepticism towards international organizations that do not directly benefit the U.S. might extend to this issue.
While neither candidate has explicitly stated opposition to Thailand joining BRICS, their broader policy frameworks suggest they might not actively support it:
– Harris might oppose or at least not support it if she perceives it as undermining democratic or human rights values or diluting U.S. influence in Southeast Asia.
– Trump could oppose it if he sees it as not aligning with U.S. economic interests or if it complicates his preference for bilateral trade negotiations.
Both candidates could potentially view Thailand’s full membership in BRICS through the lens of their broader geopolitical strategies, which might lean towards opposition or at least neutrality.
Cannabis
Cannabis was decriminalized in Thailand in 2022 and despite former PM Srettha Thavisn pledging to recriminalize the plant, that is now off the table. Both US presidential candidates are likely to support cannabis staying legal in Thailand.
Kamala Harris:
– General Stance on Cannabis: Kamala Harris has shown support for full recreational cannabis legalization in the U.S., emphasizing criminal justice reform and the expungement of records for non-violent cannabis offenses. This stance suggests a progressive view on drug policy reform.
– Impact on Thailand: If this approach were to influence her foreign policy, Harris might encourage or support nations like Thailand in their efforts towards regulated cannabis industries, especially if aligned with health and economic benefits. However, any U.S. influence would likely advocate at least on paper for strict regulations to ensure that cannabis isn’t freely available for recreational use without controls, focusing instead on medical applications due to international drug treaties and concerns over public health.
Donald Trump:
– General Stance on Cannabis: During his presidency, Trump displayed a mixed stance on cannabis. While he didn’t push for federal legalization, there was a noticeable lack of enforcement against states with legal cannabis markets. His administration, however, was criticized for its handling of cannabis issues, often seen as leaving decisions to the states. Recently, Trump has shown more support for recreational cannabis, including in his current home state of Florida.
– Impact on Thailand: Given Trump’s previous administration’s approach, his presidency might not actively oppose Thailand’s cannabis policies unless they conflict with U.S. economic interests or international drug enforcement agreements. If Thailand’s cannabis industry grows to compete with American hemp or pharmaceutical interests, there could be pressure to regulate or restrict this growth. However, a Trump administration might also see potential in supporting Thailand as a trade partner in the cannabis industry, especially if it can benefit U.S. businesses.
– Both candidates would likely have to navigate the complexities of international drug control treaties which the U.S. is a signatory to, potentially limiting their ability to openly support recreational cannabis use in Thailand without advocating for medical and research-based use. However, should the US officially remove the federal prohibition on cannabis, a strong possibility from both candidates, this could result in ending or at least rewriting many international drug treaties that officially ban the plant.
– The U.S. policy would also be influenced by domestic politics, where cannabis legalization has become more of a bipartisan issue, but with significant nuances in how it should be regulated or controlled.
– Any U.S. policy towards Thailand’s cannabis situation would also consider broader geopolitical strategies, where economic partnerships, human rights, and public health could play significant roles in shaping U.S. diplomatic responses.
While both candidates might not directly oppose Thailand’s cannabis policies, their influence would likely push for a more controlled, regulated environment rather than outright recreational use, aligning with international norms and domestic political climates. However, the exact nature of their policy would depend on numerous factors including U.S. domestic policy shifts, international relations, and economic interests.
TPN Media will continue to provide more analysis on how the US election will impact Thailand over the weeks to come.
This article originally appeared on our sister website The Pattaya News.
